Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power Sword (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:31, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Power Sword
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No coverage of the Power Sword independent of He-Man or the Masters of the Universe. Certainly not enough coverage to have it's own article. Delete and redirect, as this is already covered in He-Man and Masters of the Universe. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Leaning keep. It's worth noting that there is an unexplored commercial angle, as there are numerous versions of the item that can be bought, ranging from cheap plastic children's toys to efforts to make a realistic metal sword. BD2412  T 18:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep This both a fictional item and a toy. Both their histories and some of their impact are described based, at least in part, on secondary sources. There may be a little too much plot-information, but we do have a full article here. So under which critereon is there "Certainly not enough coverage to have it's own article"? In addition to the commercial angle pointed out by, there's also a psychological angle as appears in this academic paper and this PhD thesis, though I cannot see how extensive that is, seeing only previews. This also has a bit more to say on the sword. Daranios (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is a a regularly-published book on the franchise with extensive discussion of the item. BD2412  T 20:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * @Daranios Uh, I downloaded the paper (through LibGen) and I don't think it even mentions "power sword". The very word sword appears in it three times, the best I see is a single sentence where the "ever-present sword" is listed in passing as one of the "phallic" elements of the show. Likewise, the mention in the PhD thesis is passing, the sword was one of several toys used in some experiment and is not discussed or even introduced. The third paper has a sentence that states (in the context of He-Man never hurting living creatures) that "Throughout all 130 episodes of the original cartoon, He-Man’s The Power Sword was only used for blocking other weapons, blocking laser blasts, and removing obstacles and he never even punched anyone (robots don’t count)". That's it. Now, the book. Page 31 offers a short plot summary: "Another element brought about early on was the Power Sword, though it would evolve over the next two years, as well. It was introduced as a “key” to Castle Grayskull, needed to open the great drawbridge of the skull’s mouth and access the great powers inside. To protect the castle, the Goddess split the Power Sword in two and scattered those pieces across Eternia. Only when they were united could someone gain entrance and become a master of the universal power kept within." and bit about the relevant toy "The multiple versions of the Power Sword are easily explainable by the realities of these first action figures: the swords that most characters were packaged with all looked like that. The tiny swords were made to fit together like in the stories. The thinness of each one’s plastic led them to curve from heat and regular play." There are a few mentions throughout the rest of the text but in the context of passing and trivial plot summaries (ex. p. 61 " The two battle it out, the Power Sword countering every spell the villain summons.", p. 63 "Atop Castle Grayskull, He- Man raises the Power Sword and says...", or p. 163 "He-Man dives after his father, and the two manage to stop their decent by jamming the Power Sword into the rock wall."). Page 94 in the context of this live action adaptation, I think, informs us that "The Power Sword prop was large and unwieldy, nicknamed “The Buick Slayer”" and there are a few sentences about how he actor trained with the mock up broadsword. Page 152 tells us, in the context of some new Mattel-related He-Man, that "The Power Sword went through a redesign to include a green laser blade.". That's it, I checked each and every one of the 90+ mentions of the word sword in this book (I love Z-library...). I am afraid this is very much not enough if these are the best sources we can find (given nobody else has anything, and the article still has zero reception/significance). If someone cares, maybe something from the sources I analyzed above could be merged somewhere, but just as I concluded in the last AfD, this toy is simply not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * For Toying with Identity, and Children an Agressive Toys, that my be it, I can only see the previews. What was the result of the experiment in the latter? The preview of Masters of the Universe: Children's Toys as Reflections on Contemporary Psychoanalytic Theory contains "...conferred upon Prince Adam the capacity to become transformed into He-Man. All he must do is lift his sword high in the air and shout, “By the power of Greyskull.” Prince Adam, now the mighty He-Man...". So it talks about our sword here, even if it does not use the name. An identification of it as a phallic element may be good only for one sentence of analysis, but there it is. We have two sentences about how popular the toy was, a reception of sorts. And if we look at everything currently based on secondary sources in the article, we have several paragraphs of material, including plot-summary, but also history of the toy and publication history of the fictional item. So taking everything together, like for Jclemens, that's enough for me, even if it does not amount to a stellar article. Daranios (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't cobble the appearance of WP:SIGCOV from two or three mentions in passing... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 19:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if the argument is amount of coverage: We have an article of several paragraphs, and this would remain the case even if we cut out the unreferenced (i.e. based on primary sources) parts. That's what WP:WHYN requires in that regard. Daranios (talk) 08:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't change the fact that SIGCOV is failed here. If you disagree, please show me which source cited contains more than one-two sentences of analysis (not just plot summary) of this object. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How He-Man Mastered the Universe supports about six sentences beyond plot-summary in the current version of the article. These are a bit of thought behind the sword, but mostly the toy's history. Everything else currently there is shorter. But, as usual, WP:GNG does not say that significant coverage needs to be done with any one specific source. In my opinion, it just has to exist in total. Daranios (talk) 12:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per the above coverage. The nom's argument to "delete and redirect" is unsupported by policy and arguably would be prohibited by WP:ATD as unnecessary. Jclemens (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The existing sources are enough to demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Please see my analysis above for why the sourcing is very much not sufficient. Ping User:Jclemens ("per the above coverage") and User:Toughpigs ("existing sources") who think otherwise. Did any of you actually look at these sources at all? Or are you referring to some other sources, and if so, please tell us what they are. TIA. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  11:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't, but I see your source analysis and find that's still enough to be non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Sure, more would be nice, but again, we're dealing with a pre-Internet TV show here. Jclemens (talk) 17:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep if it’s had sufficient cultural impact to have a toy line it’s had sufficient cultural impact to have a Wikipedia article. Artw (talk) 17:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Toy lines don't have any bearing on notability if sources haven't troubled to take note of the topic in question, and the sourcing here is very limited. At most there is the coverage of the toy line itself which Daranios mentioned, but that doesn't seem substantive or sustained enough, and, if Piotr's analysis is right (it's the only detailed one as of yet), any real-world coverage this fictional sword has appears to be limited to trivial mentions. A sum of failures of SIGCOV do not make one success of it, so I guess I would support redirecting for now, however unlikely this will happen at this stage. Avilich (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge to He-Man and/or other related articles. Yes, there is coverage, but it is mostly not about the sword as such (as a fictional item or as a toy), but about the He-Man character, his series and the merchandising for it, of which the sword is but one element. An item with the cultural prominence of Excalibur this is certainly not. It should be covered, per WP:DUE, in the context of the show and its characters.  Sandstein   10:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Has the Sword of Protection actually been included in the WP:BEFORE search? It gives a number of hits. Now I assume that many of them are plot summary, but it would be the duty of the nominator to check that. At the least this paper discusses the symbolism of the sword, especially of its destruction at one point. Daranios (talk) 14:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's just more sourcing that doesn't discuss a sword independently of the character. The symbolism of that sword to She-Ra belongs in She-Ra's article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I can partially agree, it's possible to use that to discuss the sword as such and it's symbolism, or to discuss it at She-Ra. However, why are we then discussing deletion here rather than split, merge and redirect? I would be fine with that as an alternative to keeping the article, if relevant information that is not yet in the three target articles were to be preserved, and if the merge would come before the redirect. I don't see simply removing what has been gathered here either by deletion or redirection in the hope that someone will re-research it elsewhere or merge it later as a good way to go. As I am not exactly in the position to set conditions, I'll stay with my keep opinion (and I still see a stand-alone article as an effective solution), because alternatives could be solved in a clean-up afterwards at any time. Daranios (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.